Fantastic Four
—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film
—Spiritual Connections
Although I tend to avoid discovering too much about how a film is faring critically before I see it, with Fantastic Four, I was picking up a sour smell on the wind long before I entered the multiplex. One critic I overheard on the radio referred to it as “a vile disease.� Another critic (Maurice Broaddus, who had seen an advance screening) sent me an e-mail saying, “Lower your expectations.� These initial responses caused me to seriously question whether I should even bother seeing the film. But I was really looking forward to watching a movie that night, and I had already made plans with friends, so off I went.
I think it was about thirty minutes into the screening when I turned to my friend and said, “You know, this really isn’t all that bad.� Don’t take my comment the wrong way: Fantastic Four wasn’t all that good, either, but it certainly wasn’t a vile disease. Perhaps Maurice’s warning had the desired effect: I walked into the theater with my expectations around my ankles, but I could probably have worn them at least knee-high.
As the film progressed, however, I realized my expectations weren’t just riding low; I may have actually put on the wrong pair. Still smoldering in the afterglow of a genre-defining film like Batman Begins, I, like most critics, had expected Fantastic Four to follow in the Caped Crusader’s footsteps by offering us a gritty, sophisticated story that was more concerned with exploring deep, philosophical issues than portraying fisticuffs and budget-busting CGI shots. In short, I expected a comic book film for adults. Fantastic Four didn’t seem to be going in that direction at all though. Where Batman Begins was gritty, Fantastic Four was goofy. Unlike Bruce Wayne, Dr. Reed Richards and co. weren’t at all interested in pondering deep, philosophical issues. They didn’t even seem too concerned with fighting evil, for that matter. They spent most of their time fighting each other. And the filmmakers never once shied away from throwing in a cool CGI effect, just for the fun of it. It took a while, but I finally came to see that Fantastic Four wasn’t a comic book film for adults after all. It was a comic book film for kids. (Imagine that!) Once I was able to make this paradigm shift, suddenly, the movie didn’t seem all that bad.
Before any Fantastic Four purists jump all over me, let me say this: I feel your pain. I’ve never really been into the Fantastic Four, but if Batman had received the same sort of cinematic treatment as Ben Grimm and the gang, I would have been hopping mad. This film isn’t exactly a mockery of Marvel Comics’ flagship title, but it’s only one or two notches above camp. The acting is way over the top, the characters are painted with bold, bright colors, the script is overly didactic, and the entire production is about as subtle as Al Qaeda when making a point. (I'm thinking in particular about the wedding ring on the bridge scene here.) But what else would you expect from a movie for kids? Sure, I was hoping as much as anyone else that Fantastic Four would deliver two more hours of sophisticated fanboy bliss. But post-pubescent males with too much time and money on their hands aren’t the only target market in the world (although we are a very lucrative market, Mr. Winter). Kids need their share of summer viewing fun, too. And, as one of my companions said, “If I think about this movie from my six-year-old son’s point of view, he would absolutely love it.� I’m sorry, die-hard fans, but this movie just wasn’t made for you.
So, even though Fantastic Four was not what any of us expected, I don’t think it’s nearly as bad as most critics are making it out to be either. Sure, it doesn’t hold a candle to Batman Begins or the Spiderman films in terms of cultural significance or artistic merit, but, all Pixar films excluded, neither do most films aimed primarily at children. For me, the acerbic critical response to this film is a good reminder that a work of art—even blatantly commercial pieces like this film—should always be judged according to the creator’s original intentions, not our own thoughts about what the work should or could be. Unfortunately, that means I should probably stop complaining about Tim Burton’s take on Batman. Heck, it's only taken me sixteen years to learn that lesson...
In terms of spiritual significance, one of the main things I got from this film is how power reveals character. The relationship between power and character is a recurring theme throughout the work of Marvel pioneer Stan Lee (who had a hand in creating not only the Fantastic Four but also Spiderman, the Incredible Hulk, the X-Men, and Daredevil, among others). As with most of Lee’s characters, when the people in Fantastic Four receive their special powers, personality traits that were already bubbling just beneath the surface suddenly become magnified, either for good or ill. Johnny Storm, for instance, was always hungry for attention. As the Human Torch, now he can gain the attention of the entire world. But will he find a more socially responsible use for his powers? Victor Von Doom, by way of contrast, has always harbored a murderous intent toward Reed Richards or anyone else who stood in his way. Once he is transformed by the cosmic storm, he can finally act on his murderous thoughts without consequence, and act he does. The question is, can he be stopped?
This isn’t much different from what happens to us when we gain some kind of new power, whether money, position or ability. When our capacity to fulfill our inner longings increases exponentially, we are forced to confront some tough questions, such as: Were we living according to the values we espoused simply because we couldn’t afford to act on our true desires, or do we really believe what we say we believe? Now that we have the power to do anything—or much more than we could before—what will we do? Who will we become? Will we use our power to help others? Or will we keep it to ourselves? Exactly what are our deepest desires anyway? As this movie illustrates, how we answer such questions will determine if our lives lead to something truly fantastic or if we wind up walking the road to doom. It also shows that we probably shouldn't wait until those "super" powers come along before we start asking them. Otherwise, we probably won't be too happy with the character our new powers reveal.
—Overview
—Photos
—About this Film
—Spiritual Connections
2 Comments:
Wowzer, a comic book film for kids!!
QUELLE CRIME!!
HAhahahahahahaha! Hahahahahahaha!!
(Liz in Joker mode again. Been busy, Kev - actually watching movies for a change. Haven't got that much to say right now... will try on another post if I can find the right fit...)
OK, Kevvie. So - seeing as nobody seems to want to say very much on this Fantastic Four movie... perhaps you could explain to us your views on ANOTHER, a Burton-related topic... namely, WHY did you object so much to Tim Burton's "take" on "Batman"??????????
I mean, WHAT were you expecting... particularly after reading Miller's "Dark Knight Returns"... and a plethora of other, what were very new-fangled graphic novels at the time...
I HAD read them... so wasn't expecting anything much more "life-affirming" out of a Burton Batman... except, that:-
1) I DID expect it to follow Hollywood's rules, and "pattern", for an entertainment/action movie! Therefore, for one thing, beforehand I KNEW that it must have some sex in it, cf. the Bruce Wayne/Vicky Vale scenes... (there were actually people who COMPLAINED about this... can you believe it...usually the "comics purists"! Well if they KNEW as much about comics as they pretended to, they would know that Bruce has ALWAYS had girlfriends... who he has however never gotten particularly close to!)
2) I knew (and privately felt relieved) that the plot COULDN'T be much to do with Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns", or at least not be closely based on it - for the first, because the former was NOT really a "Batman" story at all, it was some kind of "futuristic" crap, and for the second, because I KNEW (as a 20-year-old - I was never any fool!) that Miller's "vision" was NOT translateable to the screen... not in terms of a conventional Hollywood plot. (Various people have nagged, say, Rodriguez, to transfer it to the screen... admittedly, it would be more achievable, with the lower budget and techniques of the new CGI-background cinema... BUT Rodriguez still doesn't want to DO it (GOOD!!!); he instead has pledged to continue with Miller's "Sin City" series - yuck but we have to be thankful for small mercies. That has always been my philosophy throughout life. I suppose it has led to a sort of "lesser-evilism"... which approach now incidentally the whole of the harder Left seems to be rebelling against! But whatever they say, I'd RATHER have a lesser evil, than a far GREATER one, eg. Bush, Hitler. For me, so much of my adult life has been damage limitation and adaptation to less than ideal scenarios... but nevertheless being able to congratulate myself thus: "It would have been far worse IF I had..." Or "IF this had happened and not that... but then I didn't think it would, because my instincts are basically optimistic!" (Well, I do see myself as part of the generation that honestly feared it was going to die in a nuclear holocaust... and yet we all escaped! THAT is something to be glad for!! Every day of one's life; no idea how I got onto talking about that, but it's far from trivial!)
Anyway, I was proved right on all counts. In real life and with the cinematic rendition of "Batman". Much to my relief. So when I saw the movie, it was just an occasion for a moderate amount of amused entertainment, based on Nicholson's overacting and so on.
The movie WAS "yickier" than I had expected, though, I must say... I hadn't anticipated totally "unrealistic" violence like the Joker's electrocution of his gang boss to a black crisp... Seeing as the electrode was in the Joker's palm, no glove or anything would have served as insulation: had he tried that, he would have been crisped himself... it would have been FAR more realistic, say, if the Joker had used an electric buzzer, with a hundred times the normal charge, say, and if it had stopped the mobster's heart and he had died of a heart attack... say. But Hollywood (modern) ALWAYS has to be over-obvious!!
But... apart from that... the only thing that really troubled me were a) the villain's demise (I thought to myself, well it MIGHT happen at the end of "The Wizard of Oz" and be just what the doctor ordered... but comic books are generally all about RECURRING villains... you might need them in another movie, you can't do that!! And they did! And they found that the only way to get the Joker back would be to completely restart the franchise... which they now have done! Well let's hope they don't kill him again or they'll find themselves in the same pickle!)
And b) the cavalier fashion in which the hero achieved this.... it was almost as if he were trying to MURDER the villain (rather than killing him in mortal combat, which didn't happen... I mean, can you seriously see a guy of Nicholson's age fighting??)
As if the Batman were trying to MURDER the villain, yet he wanted to deflect attention from the fact that that's what he was doing, so he made it look "accidentally on purpose"... ie, "I attached this rope to him and then the helicopter pulled up and dislodged the stone, which made the Joker lose his grip... so it wasn't my fault REALLY.... was it??" Disingenuous like that.
That's not HONEST. You have to have a hero defeat his opponent FAIRLY. But this lackadaisical attitude towards life and death followed on through "Batman Returns" as well - and HARDLY a critic picked up on or criticised this fact! (Which made me wildly indignant.)
It was left to the SCHUMACHER-directed sequels, "Forever" and "Batman and Robin", to attempt to deal with ANY moral questions... seeing as this was a series of superhero movies, about a hero who USED to be all about Truth and Justice... namely, Moral Questions... I thought this was so late in coming!! Yet welcome!
(What do you think about this, Sam, if you're here?)
Yes: it was left to Val Kilmer's rendition of the Batman to tell his protege, Chris O'Donnell's Dick Grayson, not to go overboard on the "revenge" element on Two-Face... that if he killed the latter, that would just wound Grayson further. Good point. It's also made quite well by other GREAT and moral writers, namely J. K. Rowling in her latest, "The Half-Blood Prince"... Dumbledore tells Harry that every time a person kills, his soul is torn apart... which also drives the plot, as it explains why Voldemort likes killing, as he can harness it for magical purposes... but it also plugs into what YOU were warning me about, Kevin, about killing and "ends v. means"... yet I noticed that Rowling HASN'T ruled out Harry killing Voldemort.. it might be just what he HAS to do... or BOTH may die at the hands of each other in the next and last book... who knows!!
YET what Rowling emphasises, is that ALL such actions have great moral import. And that is JUST what most modern movies and graphic novels do NOT, no longer do they, emphasize: ergo, I DESPISE them.
(But it's not that I was expecting BETTER of Tim Burton than he produced: certainly not after F. Miller's farce... therefore, you see, I was NOT disappointed! I knew we were living in an immoral age, and I had already basically given up hope for Hollywood... At the age of 20, I was already THAT cynical... Which I think was a good quality of mine, because it proved that I was EVER sharp and quick on the uptake... I base my conclusions on what I see going on around me!)
THEREFORE, it was a pleasant SURPRISE when Joel Shumacher took over the franchise, and Burton was producing it (that I think was the best possible combination!), and they KEPT the basic look of the movies, just made the scenes a bit lighter (though there was STILL plenty of "dark", my oh my, yes!), and the sets looked a bit more realistic (ie, like a REAL town where people lived, not just a movie set) and "lived-in".
Yes, so they had all THAT - but Val Kilmer as the Batman suddenly started discussing moral questions - GREAT - AND we had all that symbolic stuff with the visual symbols, and the narrative of the shaman's/hero's journey, which was, as I've already commented, achieved far more artistically than in "Batman Begins"... it was far more "psychological" and dreamlike.
So - WHAT's not to like about "Batman Forever", I thought. Something for everybody. Though when I finally got on the internet, I was annoyed by the plethora of pathetic comments (by the usual suspects - comics fanboy types - NOW can people see why I LOATHE most of them!) saying "But it's not Dark enough"... "Jim Carrey is too irritating"... (well what do they EXPECT out of a villain - calming properties??)
"Oh, it's silly", and etc etc. But if these blithering IDIOTS could have bothered to see PAST the little sprinkling of humour and absurdity in the villains (they are MEANT to be absurd, for F***'s sake - this is your FATE as a Batman villain: if you turn into the Joker or the Penguin or the Riddler, people will laugh at you for the REST of your life - although they'll also be afraid of you - so you'd better like laughter and laughing back at them, sunshine...)
And past the PG certificate: if idiots on Amazon and Yahoo Movies could see past that, then they could see that it was actually a very RICH movie. But the climax was spoiled by bad cutting and half an hour of necessary stuff was removed; there was just one guy on YM who picked up on that, and who told us, so I know! And as for all the right-wing homophobes who said that including Robin made it a "gay movie" or that having "nipples" (did you even SEE them?) on the suits was "gay"... they should all stick their heads in a toilet and leave it there while it is being flushed about 10 times in unbroken succession!
Them's my views.
So, anyway, Kevin... tell us... WHAT did you find so objectionable about the first FOUR Batman movies.... namely, especially, the two Tim Burton-directed ones??
And what about "Batman Forever"... did you like it better or worse than "Batman" and "Batman Returns"?
Maurice is quite right about Tim Burton being a director with a vision yet no clue about plot to hang his vision on!! Other reviewers (professional) have commented on Burton's poor storytelling ability; there was one whose article I saved a few days ago, I think I found it on cnbc.com... Whatever it is called!
Not everybody agrees about what element is "bad storytelling", though. Like this reviewer complained about the scenes leading up to the climax of "Batman", where Michael Keaton resorts to the flying machine known as the Batwing, and rather ungallantly, strafes the Joker from the air by airfire! (Another reviewer remarked in a book that the Joker has a "hero moment" here.) Because the Joker resists him by standing his ground rather valiantly: and unscathed, he draws a long rifle from his pants and shoots the Batwing down with one lucky shot!
I didn't find that moment particularly "disbelievable", ie destroying suspension of disbelief, at the cinema. Not in the context of all the fantasy and unlikelihood which preceded it! It was, however, a funny moment: probably the most amusing in the film, I now decide with hindsight.
The CNBC journalist however thought it was "unrealistic" (as if realism was what they were aiming at!) because the Batman missed and the Joker - with only one shot - didn't.
But - when one TRULY knows archetypes, as I do, intimately, from the inside out... one realises that kind of feat BELONGS to a Fool, is part of his repertoire. (You can almost imagine a very similar scene if the same sort of thing had been played out in a Chaplin movie, for example.) It is Fool's luck! The Fool beats all the odds by sheer luck; he often wins in the same manner... which "explains" the whole episode for me, which makes THAT part of the movie - believable.
Also - another observation - the long rifle was also an unmistakeably PHALLIC symbol... which ALSO belongs to the Fool/Trickster... yes I WILL one day make the argument that they're ALL bi... but they're also very sexual, and since MOST of these characters are male, this means that they too have a very strong masculine sexuality. All Fools use a wand or a tickling stick for a start (it's called a marotte) - phallic symbol. And trickster gods like Hermes were originally phallic gods. It's all in the litterachoor...
Isn't Batman ALWAYS presented as a character who IS a bit inhibited, who has certain - issues - about sex, and about expressing his emotions? It's not that he's that cold or repressed or anything; in the old comics, he's just bashful and shy, reserved in the way a good (Christian!) knight should be...
And it's the Joker who by contrast is uninhibited and shameless, no? Though the "new comics" NEVER portray this - they're far more interested in violence and THAT kind of porn, because they are written by impossible, perverted, stultified people like Frank Miller and Alan Moore...
In a TRUE adult comic, one could imagine the Joker getting up to ALL sorts... much sooner than one would imagine the Batman doing thus, not so??
Anyway, interestingly enough, there was quite a LOT of phallic symbolism associated with the Joker in the first "Batman" movie: including the long nose on the vast clown inflatable. Not at all inappropriate!
Just something which I noticed - on my first viewing, too!
And I think that it would have made a better movie if they had CONCENTRATED on that, and if the movie had been about the Joker's uninhibitedness next to the Batman's stern "keep a lid on it" philosophy (the cartoons are more like this!) and if Tim Burton had made the Joker more of a "sex god" than a "death god".
But I FORGET - that would OFFEND l'il fanboys, wouldn't it? With their underdeveloped, junior-high-school-level sexualities - if one could call them that!!
Anyway, I think that is ANOTHER thing which modern society does... it PROMOTES sex, well in a way it does, as it was taught to do by the Freud family (do you know, that another branch of that family was active in starting the modern advertising industry?)... so it PRETENDS to sell sex, whereas what it is REALLY doing is using sex to sell goods and services...
But in REALITY it is mortal afraid of this drive in humanity - because it is so... relentless and pro-change, pro-evolution, I think. (Ergo: anti-ruling-class.)
So in modern popular culture, esp. movies, TRULY sexual figures are heavily suppressed (with the RARE exception of farcical characters like Austin Powers) and the Frank Millers and the Tim Burtons alike turn everything into a worship of death... yes, very "gothic" in that sense... but a witch isn't going to like it - and she doesn't my friends - because such a philosophy has nothing about it of Life and the Mother.
And now I'm going to see if Kevin has anything sensible to say or respond or discuss in relation to the issues I've raised - or if he just deletes me.
Post a Comment
<< Home